Spider

I think I'm in love. I might actually have to shell out and get one of those. It looks amazing. Oh and I agree with everything mkreku wrote about ipods in general.

And then you'll wait for 6 months to play it waiting for a pat ch to fix all bugs.

Sniper Elite

Iirc, there are two strains of fan patches. The on you mention that is a patch and a mod, and another one that strives to just do bug fixes. Don't have any handy links though, I'm afraid.

Note that editing the clip may be a bit tricky, if the original is longer that is. I'm not sure how .flv does it, but mpgs (as in the stream, not the file type) is constructed in such a way that you can only cut at specific frames (keyframes). If that is also the case with .flv, you'll need to find a way to convert it to a raw format first. Of course, if you're using the clip in it's entirety, feel free to ignore this post.

Actually, no. There reason for being is to sell ads. As is the case with basically all texts in all magazines and newspapers (with the exception of user generated content). What the consumer expects to get from them, is probably what you say though. But that's another beast entirely. Anyway, that's the point I was making earlier. Writing (or at least publishing) a preview or review in a way that causes ad revenue to decrease is simply bad business, because ad revenue is what makes magazines exist in the first place. The cover price tag barely covers the cost of printing, if that. What needs to happen is that the gaming press needs to man up and realize that the gaming industry needs them just as much as vice versa. The problem is that a majority of them needs to do it at the same time. If just one or two does it, they go out of business and someone else takes their place. More actual journalists in the ranks of the gaming press wouldn't hurt either, but is still a very secondary issue.

VATS is pause-for-shooting. But after you've said what to do, parts of your actions (if I get it right, the last parts of it all, when you hit whoever you're shooting at) will play out in slow mo.

The fault doesn't lie with Bethesda (or other game companies). The way they are marketing their games is basically the same methods that any company uses. I'd more blame the gaming press that keeps falling for it. The whole problem with the gaming press is that they're so dependent on the gaming industry for everything. It's the gaming industry that buys the ads and it's them you need to go to for content. Piss off a major publisher and you risk losing a lot of ad revenue and stop getting invited to these preview things (or getting review copies). Though I think it's more of a perceived threat than an outspoken one. I don't know how it is in other specialist press, but I can imagine it's fairly similar. There simply is no magazine or website that is big enough that they can simply tell the gaming industry to stuff it if they don't like what they write. Some mags or sites are better than others of course, but the problem is still there. What Bethesda is doing is simply showing what they consider being the best parts of their game. And since the gaming press is not very critical, that's all that gets shown. (I personally think previews suffer worse from all of this than reviews. Sure, scores are typically a bit inflated when it comes to games from a major publisher, but if you take the time to read the text you usually get a better idea about what problems a game may suffer from)

I don't know. I think I went through it fairly thoroughly and I didn't know it was a trap (and iirc it wasn't a trap either, just an event that had somewhat unpredictable consequences). By luck I happened to take the other route in the end and got the other ending, but I might just have well turned left instead of right (and did later because I wanted to see both versions). Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, I don't know.

I think the term "simple plot" needs to be defined in this discussion. Because I just can't see how a plot that "unfolds into something deeper and very complex" can be called simple. Does it start with a simple premise? Fair enough, amnesia is not a very advanced story hook. But as the plot grows it becomes increasingly advanced. Not hard to follow for the most part, but increasingly complex in where it takes you. Baldur's Gate on the other hand, really does have a very simple plot. Except that's not what kills you. You get killed by accomplishing your goal. And completely without warning in a very What the?! kind of way. The ending in Fallout was tragic, the one in Stalker just stupid (at least the ones where you just die, they did add endings where you lived as well before release).

Already been pointed out. My memory was a bit fuzzy about that. But I've already explained that too.

You can kill the Werewolf. Just not in a fair fight, which is how it's supposed to be in the first place.

Except that art is from Pathfinder, not D&D (maybe 4E art is similar, then feel free to link)

Maybe a reason you're not getting help is because you're not actually saying what you want help with. Anyway, here is my quick reaction to the original post. If I was the intended audience for this world project, you'd lose my interest right here. Fantasy, for me, becomes interesting when it's not black and white. Having a good country and an evil country is so cliche, and, well, boring. Unless there's more going on underneath the surface. So what I'm wondering is what makes Freedor good. And what makes Khire evil? And what is the point of the distinction? Oh, and the name Freedor... How much more obvious can you get? Besides, from my perspective, the only countries that'd actually need to have "free" in their name are countries that are anything but. But the first thing I'd do is downplay the "evilness" of Khire. Expansionistic is hardly the same thing as evil, even if the ones fighting against the empire certainly might feel that way. There's no one calling the roman empire evil this day, is it? The basic idea still works with war and infiltration and such. Let the players themselves figure out what side is right. Make compelling arguments for both of them. Otherwise it'll just come off as a rip-off of Tolkien or (worse) the Belgariad (although Eddings did try to get away from the black white stuff a little at least in the second series). Anyway, that's my take on it, do with it as you like. If you want any other ideas, you need to be more specific in your request.

Afaik there is no such thing as variable bitrate if it's 320. So maybe that's where the difference comes from, going from constant bitrate to variable. Or maybe it's something different. But if you want to give it another go, you could try doing 256 constant I guess. Edit: Since you're using LAME, does this mean you're going from 320 constant to V0 varible? Or just 256 variable?

Yeah, I actually found the language patch to be a detraction to the game at times. Sometimes the subtitles would say something completely different than what Geralt was actually saying, making the flow of the conversation not make any sense. Besides, it's not like the more faithful translation elevates the writing to greater levels. It's mostly just longer (which in writing can often be a bad thing). But the enhanced version could be worth it. Cant, just a fair warning. Not everyone is as enthusiastic about the game as the more vocal supporters. Pop wrote a lengthy comment about it in the other thread that I personally thought was pretty much spot on. There are some parts in it that are really good, but there is also a lot of filler. A lot. I've played through almost all of chapter four and it started to get a bit dull. Dull enough for me to need a break from it for a while. That was almost a month ago and I haven't been at all inspired to go back to it. It's like Gothic 3 in that sense, once you've had enough, you've had enough and the story really isn't compelling enough to get my attention back. (except I think Gothic 3 was a better game, but also a more flawed game that made my computer cry tears of blood) I'm currently waiting for the enhanced version to hit to see if that will make me get interested in the game again. Oh and the character creation system is not so hot. It's interesting at first, but you get so many skillpoints that you kinda max out everything. Unless you're a mage type character I guess. Since I'm not, by the end of chapter 4 I've pretty much maxed out all skills relevant to my playstyle. And most others I've good enough in to be able to rely on them if I have to. With the exception of most of the mage schools (I'm still good in two of those). It's a good enough game, so you should try it out by all means. Just don't go in expecting a game that is similar in quality to MotB, then you'll be disappointed. Anyway, that's my take on it. I hope you're going to like it more than I did. Others here certainly have.

I can help with rules and stuff, but I won't be participating in any games as a player or GM. No time and no inclination (since my group plays quite frequently). If you play 1E that is. I'm not very well versed in 2E. I have played them (even GM:ed them, something I rarely do) and I have some of the books, just not very many. I have all the 1E books though.

There is really no point in arguing with Sand. He tends to be a bit irrational. But since my post started this particular debate, I'd like to try and get back to my original point (which is on topic, although it used Mass Effect as an example). Because the post I quoted in the first place is kinda of important. So for reference, here is my post (with quote and all): Please prove how Mass Effect's story wouldn't have been better if they had limited character choices more. Sand, please not here how you were discussing story quality as a separate element from "fun factor". You specifically took two elements of a gaming and put them against each other concluding that one doesn't need to have a negative impact on the other. You even said you had proof. So again, please present that proof. If you meant another game than ME, feel free to bring out that example. I was just guessing you meant ME due to you mentioning it earlier in the thread. I'm not sure it's really going to matter in regards to AP though. My impression is that Michael Thorton won't really be a character unique enough to really force the issue in the way it's been done. I'm pretty sure any relatively new CIA operative could have been the focus on the game. I'd guess that the character is male because they want him to be able to flirt with all the girls (and to be able to have NPCs address him by name, but that could have been covered by just the last name, so I'm guessing the girls matter more). Edit: I know I said I was going to let it go, but when others keep picking up on it, I just wanted to give it one more try.

I'm more excited about Aliens, because we're finally going to get to see JE do his thing from start to finish. In the past he's had many theories about how games should work that I've agreed with, so that makes me very curious. And I also think the setting is a bit more interesting, so there's that. Doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to AP, I am. The Mitsoda/Avellone team does seem like a match made in heaven. Unless they get in each others way, but I'm sure that will be fine. But the spy stuff never managed to get me all that excited. Never was a Bond fan and was underwhelmed by the Bourne Identity (to the degree where I haven't seen the rest of them). I do like 24 though, but it's not enough for AP to beat out Alien.

If these games were novels, which they are not, PS:T beats both Fallout and Mass Effect, but since they are games and fun is a factor in games both Mass Effect and Fallout beats PS:T. Sheesh. But I'm not asking about their qualities as games. I'm asking about the story quality alone. Fun factor takes gameplay into account and that makes it an entirely different beast. But it's clear you're trying to avoid answering the question, so I'll stop now.

Please prove how Mass Effect's story wouldn't have been better if they had limited character choices more. I don't see how it can be better. It is the only game in a decade that has removed Fallout from its number 1 position in my top ten list. So you're saying Mass Effect has a better story than Torment? I'm not talking gameplay mechanics or overall fun-factor here. Just story.

I only used the word tone because it's used in the article. I do fully expect the actual words to be different depending on what style you chose. I'm still not sure about the break-points though. To me it doesn't seem like this article is saying that at all. I'm still under the impression that you'll be using one style until you specify to use another, rather than choosing for each response. I guess we'll know more when the full article surfaces, or when info gets released through more channels.

The way I'm reading it, it doesn't pause to have you select answers at all. I got the impression that dialogue was like a movie. Playing on as you watch it. You can chose what tone you'll use, but it's more of a setting. You'll keep using that tone until you chose another, and you can change on the fly (although maybe not mid-sentence). I could be wrong though.

Please prove how Mass Effect's story wouldn't have been better if they had limited character choices more.

They've changed quite a lot, although most of it is fairly superficial. Many charms work differently and all skills now have dice-adder charms that function identically. Most of that is done for balance reasons though and works fairly well. They've also upped the scale a bit. Weapons do more damage and minimum damage (what goes through no matter what the soak) is based on essence rather than being just one. But that's the small stuff. The biggest change is how they re-wrote combat. If you've played the Exalted Power Combat rules in 1E player's guide, it's fairly similar to that. The Defense Value is part of it all, but actually a fairly good part. No, the biggest change is how combat plays. Instead of turns, combat plays out in ticks. A tick is an indefinite amount of time that it takes to perform a single action. Also, all actions have a tick cost associated with them, which is how long you must wait until you get to do your next action. So the system becomes one of time management. You'll need to keep track of when your next action is at, judge how many ticks you can afford to wait (do you want to aim, guard, etc). Math becomes a bigger factor. It's not a bad system by any means, and probably better balanced. It was designed to fix some of the problems with the system in 1E and I think it probably does. The thing is, our group never experienced those problems, so we didn't need the fix. Also, the players I play with are ones that don't really care about knowing the rules, and the 2E system kind of forces the player to at least know more. Too much for the rest of my group. Combat is such a rare occurance for us anyway, so it makes sense to keep the rules fairly simple (typically, our players will just say what they want to do and let the GM figure out what dice to roll). Personally I would have liked to try the 2E system a bit more. But we did and it just didn't work. Given how our group works, it put all the responsibilit of the bookkeeping on the GM and that just led to everything taking longer. Maybe if we had kept at it for longer it'd settle, but it was decided that it wasn't worth the effort, since we really didn't have the problems the system was intended to fix in the first place. Another change is that they made rules for social combat. It now works in a way that is similar to physical combat, with timing rules, defense values and all. Again, nothing we felt we needed, but that part of it was easier to just opt out of. Probably a good thing for those who need it though. Actually, this is pretty much a huge benefit for us. Mostly only the GM reads the rules in the first place anyway. I tend to read up on the stuff my characters should know about, nothing more. Sure, once we've played a few campaigns, it becomes a little fuzzy (as in the player's start knowing too much) but at that time it becomes clear what the players should know in the first place. And Exalted certainly is the worst of them all when it comes to rolling a lot of dice. Split dice pool in Exalted is a terrible misnomer though. It's a term carried over from Vampire (where it was correct) and just wasn't changed when the functionality was altered. Multiple action penalty is what it should be called (and that is fixed in second edition).